Summary

The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for two Chicago Police Department detectives accused of concealing evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The plaintiff, Bernard Mims, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after serving ten years in prison for a murder conviction that was later vacated. The Seventh Circuit held that Mims failed to produce evidence that the detective intentionally or recklessly suppressed an audio recording or prevented prosecutors from accessing it. Because the prosecution had knowledge of and access to the recording, no Brady violation could be attributed to the detective.

Background and Procedural History

In 2000, Dwayne Baker was shot and killed outside a Chicago public housing complex. During the investigation, detectives obtained multiple court orders authorizing “confidential overhear” recordings between an informant and Michael Sardin, a suspected gang member believed to be involved in the murder. One of the subsequent audio files captured a conversation in which Sardin appeared to claim responsibility for the shooting, evidence Mims later characterized as exculpatory.

Following additional investigation, the Cook County State’s Attorney charged Mims in 2004. During discovery, the defense did not receive the recording capturing the conversation between the informant and Sardin concerning Sardin’s involvement in the murder. Mims was then found guilty at trial and sentenced to 95 years in prison. In 2015, after investigation by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office’s Conviction Integrity Unit, the circuit court vacated Mims’s conviction and sentence.

Mims subsequently filed a § 1983 action against the City of Chicago and several detectives, alleging, inter alia, that Detectives Daniel McNally and Ted Przepiora violated his due process rights under Brady by withholding the Sardin recording.

Seventh Circuit Analysis

Writing for the panel, Judge Scudder emphasized that Brady obligations rest primarily with the prosecution, not police. To establish a police-based Brady violation under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the evidence was favorable to the defendant, (2) the officer “intentionally or at least recklessly” concealed it from the prosecution, and (3) prejudice resulted. Mere negligence is insufficient.

The Court found that the Sardin recording was in the court file with copies retained by the State’s Attorney’s Office. The prosecutor, ASA Delaney, was aware of the “confidential overhear” orders and had both knowledge of and access to the impounded recordings. Because the prosecution knew of the Sardin recording and could have retrieved it, the detectives could not be said to have suppressed it.

The Court also rejected Mims’s claim that the detectives provided an incomplete set of the recordings obtained by the “confidential overhear” orders to the prosecution. The record in the district court proceedings contained no evidence that the detective misled prosecutors or prevented disclosure. Detective McNally’s testimony that he believed the State’s Attorney’s Office possessed all recordings further undermined the idea of intentional or reckless concealment.

As to Detective Przepiora, the Court found no evidence that he knew of the Sardin recording at all. Given a lack of knowledge concerning the allegedly exculpatory evidence, Detective Przepiora could not be found to have concealed the evidence from the prosecution.

Takeaways for Law Enforcement and Municipalities

1. Prosecutorial knowledge defeats liability for Brady violations. When a prosecutor knows of and has access to potentially exculpatory evidence, police officers cannot be held liable under § 1983 for nondisclosure. Police officers should ensure that the State’s Attorney’s Office has knowledge of and access to all evidence gathered during a criminal investigation.
2. Intent matters. A civil claim under Brady requires proof of intentional or reckless concealment of evidence. Officers remain protected when the failure to transfer evidence to the prosecution results from confusion, mistakes, or oversight.
3. Chain of custody and documentation remains important. Clear documentation of where evidence is stored and who has access can foreclose on claims of suppression.
4. Qualified immunity remains a defense. While the Seventh Circuit declined to evaluate the district court’s ruling on qualified immunity, no clearly established law imposes a duty on police officers to ensure prosecutors turn over materials.

Authored by:

Zachery Frye (unpictured)